Get Indian Philosophy essential facts below. View Videos or join the Indian Philosophy discussion. Add Indian Philosophy to your Like2do.com topic list for future reference or share this resource on social media.

Indian Philosophy

Indian philosophy refers to ancient philosophical traditions of the Indian subcontinent. The principal schools are classified as either orthodox or heterodox - ?stika or n?stika - depending on one of three alternate criteria: whether it believes the Vedas are a valid source of knowledge; whether the school believes in the premises of Brahman and Atman; and whether the school believes in afterlife and Devas.[1][2][3]

Indian philosophies share many concepts such as dharma, karma, samsara, reincarnation, dukkha, renunciation, meditation, with almost all of them focussing on the ultimate goal of liberation of the individual through diverse range of spiritual practices (moksha, nirvana).[11] They differ in their assumptions about the nature of existence as well as the specifics of the path to the ultimate liberation, resulting in numerous schools that disagreed with each other. Their ancient doctrines span the diverse range of philosophies found in other ancient cultures.[12]

Orthodox schools

Hindu philosophy has a diversity of traditions and numerous saints and scholars, such as Adi Shankara of Advaita Vedanta school.

Many Hindu intellectual traditions were classified during the medieval period of Brahmanic-Sanskritic scholasticism into a standard list of six orthodox (Astika) schools (darshanas), the "Six Philosophies" (?a?-dar?ana), all of which accept the testimony of the Vedas.[13][14][15]

Pini Dar?ana, the grammarian school (which clarifies the theory of Spho?a)

The systems mentioned here are not the only orthodox systems, they are the chief ones, and there are other orthodox schools. These systems, accept the authority of Vedas and are regarded as orthodox (astika) schools of Hindu philosophy; besides these, schools that do not accept the authority of the Vedas are heterodox (nastika) systems such as Buddhism, Jainism, Ajivika and C?rv?ka.[27][28][29] This orthodox-heterodox terminology is a construct of Western languages, and lacks scholarly roots in Sanskrit. According to Andrew Nicholson, there have been various heresiological translations of ?stika and N?stika in 20th century literature on Indian philosophies, but quite many are unsophisticated and flawed.[3]

Heterodox (?rama?ic schools)

Several ?rama?ic movements have existed before the 6th century BCE, and these influenced both the ?stika and n?stika traditions of Indian philosophy.[31] The ?rama?a movement gave rise to diverse range of heterodox beliefs, ranging from accepting or denying the concept of soul, atomism, antinomian ethics, materialism, atheism, agnosticism, fatalism to free will, idealization of extreme asceticism to that of family life, strict ahimsa (non-violence) and vegetarianism to permissibility of violence and meat-eating.[32] Notable philosophies that arose from ?rama?ic movement were Jainism, early Buddhism, C?rv?ka, Ajñana and ?j?vika.[33]

Ajñana philosophy

Ajñana was one of the n?stika or "heterodox" schools of ancient Indian philosophy, and the ancient school of radical Indian skepticism. It was a ?rama?a movement and a major rival of early Buddhism and Jainism. They have been recorded in Buddhist and Jain texts. They held that it was impossible to obtain knowledge of metaphysical nature or ascertain the truth value of philosophical propositions; and even if knowledge was possible, it was useless and disadvantageous for final salvation. They were sophists who specialised in refutation without propagating any positive doctrine of their own.

Rishabhanatha, believed to have lived over a million years ago, is considered the founder of Jain philosophy.

Jain philosophy

Jainism came into formal being after Mahavira synthesised philosophies and promulgations of the ancient ?rama?ic traditions, during the period around 550 BC, in the region that is present day Bihar in northern India.[]

Jainism, like Buddhism, is a ?rama?ic religion and rejected the authority of the Vedas. However, like all Indian religions, it shares the core concepts such as karma, ethical living, rebirth, samsara and moksha. Jainism places strong emphasis on asceticism and ahimsa (non-violence) as a means of spiritual liberation, ideas that influenced other Indian traditions.[34]

Buddhist philosophy

Buddhist philosophy is a system of thought which started with the teachings of Siddhartha Gautama, the Buddha, or "awakened one". Buddhism is founded on elements of the ?rama?a movement, which flowered in the first half of the 1st millennium BCE, but its foundations contain novel ideas not found or accepted by other Sramana movements. Buddhism and Hinduism mutually influenced each other and shared many concepts, states Paul Williams, however it is now difficult to identify and describe these influences.[35] Buddhism rejected the Vedic concepts of Brahman (ultimate reality) and Atman (soul, self) at the foundation of Hindu philosophies.[36][37][38]

Buddhism shares many philosophical views with other Indian systems, such as belief in karma - a cause-and-effect relationship, samsara - ideas about cyclic afterlife and rebirth, dharma - ideas about ethics, duties and values, impermanence of all material things and of body, and possibility of spiritual liberation (nirvana or moksha).[39][40] A major departure from Hindu and Jain philosophy is the Buddhist rejection of an eternal soul (atman) in favour of anatta (non-Self).[41]

Monastic life has been a part of all Indian philosophy traditions. Mendicant caves of extinct ?j?vikas in Bihar.[42]

Original scriptures of the ?j?vika school of philosophy may once have existed, but these are currently unavailable and probably lost. Their theories are extracted from mentions of Ajivikas in the secondary sources of ancient Indian literature, particularly those of Jainism and Buddhism which polemically criticized the Ajivikas.[45] The ?j?vika school is known for its Niyati doctrine of absolute determinism (fate), the premise that there is no free will, that everything that has happened, is happening and will happen is entirely preordained and a function of cosmic principles.[45][46] ?j?vika considered the karma doctrine as a fallacy.[47] ?j?vikas were atheists[48] and rejected the authority of the Vedas, but they believed that in every living being is an ?tman - a central premise of Hinduism and Jainism.[49][50]

C?rv?ka philosophy

C?rv?ka or Lok?yata was a philosophy of scepticism and materialism, founded in the Mauryan period. They were extremely critical of other schools of philosophy of the time. C?rv?ka deemed Vedas to be tainted by the three faults of untruth, self-contradiction, and tautology.[51] Likewise they faulted Buddhists and Jains, mocking the concept of liberation, reincarnation and accumulation of merit or demerit through karma.[52] They believed that, the viewpoint of relinquishing pleasure to avoid pain was the "reasoning of fools".[51]

Comparison of Indian philosophies

The Indian traditions subscribed to diverse philosophies, significantly disagreeing with each other as well as orthodox Hinduism and its six schools of Hindu philosophy. The differences ranged from a belief that every individual has a soul (self, atman) to asserting that there is no soul,[53] from axiological merit in a frugal ascetic life to that of a hedonistic life, from a belief in rebirth to asserting that there is no rebirth.[54]

Influence

In appreciation of complexity of the Indian philosophy, T S Eliot wrote that the great philosophers of India "make most of the great European philosophers look like schoolboys".[99][100]Arthur Schopenhauer used Indian philosophy to improve upon Kantian thought. In the preface to his book The World As Will And Representation, Schopenhauer writes that one who "has also received and assimilated the sacred primitive Indian wisdom, then he is the best of all prepared to hear what I have to say to him"[101] The 19th century American philosophical movement Transcendentalism was also influenced by Indian thought[102][103]

See also

Notes

^Elisa Freschi (2012): The Vedas are not deontic authorities and may be disobeyed, but still recognized as an epistemic authority by a Hindu;[86] (Note: This differentiation between epistemic and deontic authority is true for all Indian religions)

^Robert Neville (2004). Jeremiah Hackett, ed. Philosophy of Religion for a New Century: Essays in Honor of Eugene Thomas Long. Jerald Wallulis. Springer. p. 257. ISBN978-1-4020-2073-5., Quote: "[Buddhism's ontological hypotheses] that nothing in reality has its own-being and that all phenomena reduce to the relativities of pratitya samutpada. The Buddhist ontological hypothesese deny that there is any ontologically ultimate object such a God, Brahman, the Dao, or any transcendent creative source or principle."

^[a]Anatta, Encyclopædia Britannica (2013), Quote: "Anatta in Buddhism, the doctrine that there is in humans no permanent, underlying soul. The concept of anatta, or anatman, is a departure from the Hindu belief in atman ("the self").";[b] Steven Collins (1994), Religion and Practical Reason (Editors: Frank Reynolds, David Tracy), State Univ of New York Press, ISBN978-0791422175, page 64; "Central to Buddhist soteriology is the doctrine of not-self (Pali: anatt?, Sanskrit: an?tman, the opposed doctrine of ?tman is central to Brahmanical thought). Put very briefly, this is the [Buddhist] doctrine that human beings have no soul, no self, no unchanging essence.";[c] John C. Plott et al (2000), Global History of Philosophy: The Axial Age, Volume 1, Motilal Banarsidass, ISBN978-8120801585, page 63, Quote: "The Buddhist schools reject any ?tman concept. As we have already observed, this is the basic and ineradicable distinction between Hinduism and Buddhism";[d] Katie Javanaud (2013), Is The Buddhist 'No-Self' Doctrine Compatible With Pursuing Nirvana?, Philosophy Now;[e] David Loy (1982), Enlightenment in Buddhism and Advaita Vedanta: Are Nirvana and Moksha the Same?, International Philosophical Quarterly, Volume 23, Issue 1, pages 65-74

^ ab[a] Steven Collins (1994), Religion and Practical Reason (Editors: Frank Reynolds, David Tracy), State Univ of New York Press, ISBN978-0791422175, page 64; "Central to Buddhist soteriology is the doctrine of not-self (Pali: anatt?, Sanskrit: an?tman, the opposed doctrine of ?tman is central to Brahmanical thought). Put very briefly, this is the [Buddhist] doctrine that human beings have no soul, no self, no unchanging essence.";[b]KN Jayatilleke (2010), Early Buddhist Theory of Knowledge, ISBN978-8120806191, pages 246-249, from note 385 onwards;[c]John C. Plott et al (2000), Global History of Philosophy: The Axial Age, Volume 1, Motilal Banarsidass, ISBN978-8120801585, page 63, Quote: "The Buddhist schools reject any ?tman concept. As we have already observed, this is the basic and ineradicable distinction between Hinduism and Buddhism";[d]Katie Javanaud (2013), Is The Buddhist 'No-Self' Doctrine Compatible With Pursuing Nirvana?, Philosophy Now;[e]Anatta Encyclopædia Britannica, Quote:"In Buddhism, the doctrine that there is in humans no permanent, underlying substance that can be called the soul. (...) The concept of anatta, or anatman, is a departure from the Hindu belief in atman (self)."

^Howard Coward (2008), The Perfectibility of Human Nature in Eastern and Western Thought, State University of New York Press, ISBN978-0791473368, pages 103-114;
Harold Coward (2003), Encyclopedia of Science and Religion, Macmillan Reference, see Karma, ISBN978-0028657042

^AL Basham (1951), History and Doctrines of the Ajivikas - a Vanished Indian Religion, Motilal Banarsidass, ISBN978-8120812048, pages 237

^Damien Keown (2004), A Dictionary of Buddhism, Oxford University Press, ISBN978-0198605607, Entry for Prapañca, Quote: "Term meaning 'proliferation', in the sense of the multiplication of erroneous concepts, ideas, and ideologies which obscure the true nature of reality".

^Anatta Encyclopædia Britannica, Quote:"In Buddhism, the doctrine that there is in humans no permanent, underlying substance that can be called the soul. (...) The concept of anatta, or anatman, is a departure from the Hindu belief in atman (self)."

^Chad Meister (2009), Introducing Philosophy of Religion, Routledge, ISBN978-0415403276, page 60; Quote: "In this chapter, we looked at religious metaphysics and saw two different ways of understanding Ultimate Reality. On the one hand, it can be understood as an absolute state of being. Within Hindu absolutism, for example, it is Brahman, the undifferentiated Absolute. Within Buddhist metaphysics, fundamental reality is Sunyata, or the Void."